Atheists seem obsessed with ‘science’ and it is their favourite loosely used word. They also love the term ‘peer reviewed’ – as if it somehow ‘proves’ something!

Let’s take a bunch of patients at Valkenberg Mental Hospital and have them ‘peer review’ the health act. If we have a critical mass of votes, surely they are right if they decide to set themselves free?

No, that would be a silly assumption, but I am not being silly myself. I am just questioning why it is okay for a bunch of scientists to operate on the peer-reviewed basis, but not a bunch of Christians, or ‘religiots’ (their favourite insult).

Atheists seem to really, really (and I mean REALLY) get annoyed when you point out to them that they are proposing that something came out of nothing when the big bang occurred. They do not like it when you ask them how the second law of dynamics was broken during that event. They have no answer. Suddenly, its No, no, nooooo there was ‘something’ before the BB. Oh really? So what was before that?

Stumped!

Let’s face it, science/atheism is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their peers or gurus are actually saying. I say that what scientists assert without proof should be dismissed without proof!

Truly, the atheists who is ‘certain’, and who claims a scientific warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species because human decency is not derived from science. Decency precedes atheism and was born of relgion.

I just wish that atheists would take the risk of thinking for themselves and so experience the true happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom comes when you realise that God is the source of that independent thought.

Atheists seem addicted to nihilism. That is their choice, no problem, but please, keep your nihilism to yourself, keep it at home. Don’t come to my home with your nihilism and try play with it in front of me.

Your nihilism is actually a figment of your imagination. Time to let it go. It is like a worshiping a Flying Spaghetti Monster, if we were to give it a name.

Grow up atheists, a better world awaits.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

To expect any nuggets of wisdom to come out of that screed would be hoping for way too much. As a non-nihilist who wonders how the author ever learned a hard word like nihilist, as a science advocate who wonders how anyone can get so much wrong in so few words, as a atheist who had never heard of the word "religiots" until I was just taught it in this article by this theist, I say "grow up, theist. Santa isn't real, neither is god. Get a life." And yes, a better world does await. It will show up when we get rid of religion.

I will, of course, go ahead and use "religiots" a lot from now on. So the article wasn't all bad.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I never heard of that word either. Where did they come up with that? Does the author even know any "out" atheists?

And where did they get the idea that "peer-reviewed" is the same as a majority rule vote of any group of people? Peer review is the way to make sure that it is not just a majority rule vote, based on something sounding cool.

I don't "worship" science, but I respect it as the best way to figure things out. And the proof of science is that it works as advertised, unlike religion. It is depressing that some people love to deride the very same science that they benefit from every day...

Wow... there are enough strawmen in that article to keep Indiana's cornfields crow-free for the next decade.

I don't understand... is the author in favor of peer review or not? Creationists have peer review - but their peers are non-scientists and laypeople whose only research is between the folds of the KJV bible or a booth at a homeschool convention.

It's almost like the author tried to incorporate as many atheist "buzzwords" (excluding religiots) as possible for the xian faithful, so they could sound reasonably intelligent quoting the article on a pro-jeezus site.

Logged

If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is. - neopagan

About half way done the page I realised I was internally reading this in Edward Current's voice; I half-expected the piece to conclude with, "checkmate, atheists!"

Too many straw men and other fallacies to know wherr to begin but if we were to apply this "interpretation" of peer review then we can conclude that christianity has been "peer reviewed" by muslims and found to be false.

That's certainly one, but really, there is not need for specificity. I grant you I haven't read all of his comments, but all the ones I did read...as well as the comments of his supporters...holy Vishnu is it tragic. It's a collection of some of the most intellectually bankrupt statements ever made. It's damn near insane how infuriatingly ignorant and plain stupid some of them are.

Current favorites:

"The upside of Christianity is that it is not nihilistic. Atheism is all about nihilism.""...God owns you, but Satan wants your soul. Trust me, God will go to GREAT lengths to show you His love.""...you can not be an atheist. You can be agnostic or believe in God.""Because Christianity BUILDS great countries, and atheism breaks them down. You can plot this on a graph. Look at USA."

The idiocy is far, FAR too large to not at least consider the possibility that the author is a Poe.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

The idiocy is far, FAR too large to not at least consider the possibility that the author is a Poe.

The thought crossed my mind, and it is quite the condemnation of religious thinking...that someone mocking the position is indistinguishable from the position

« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 12:21:36 PM by Hatter23 »

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Indeed... so many logical fallacies in so few words that I bet even you would have a difficult time identifying all of them.

Other than the false dichotomy...all the others are just variations of red herring. But then again, most fallacies used are varieties of red herring.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Let’s take a bunch of patients at Valkenberg Mental Hospital and have them ‘peer review’ the health act. If we have a critical mass of votes, surely they are right if they decide to set themselves free?

What exactly is the implication here? Do mental patients lack the intelligence to read and review literature regarding healthcare?

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

No, our nihilism is a figment of your imagination. Time to let that figment go into the trash bin where it belongs.

Logged

"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne

Let’s take a bunch of patients at Valkenberg Mental Hospital and have them ‘peer review’ the health act. If we have a critical mass of votes, surely they are right if they decide to set themselves free?

What exactly is the implication here? Do mental patients lack the intelligence to read and review literature regarding healthcare?

Clearly the author thinks that mental patients are the peers of politicians.

If only politicians did some real peer review of the evidence before voting on policies...we'd have national health care, good science education, well-organized public transit, intelligent news programs, no death penalty, legal gay marriage, gun control and drug decriminalization. And no tax breaks for religious groups.

I am assuming you think that the Ten Commandments or something related to Jesus are the foundation of all laws. Not true. There were legal systems before Christianity that forbid stealing and killing. And there are legal systems (in Thailand and Japan, for example) that function perfectly well and have nothing to do with Christianity. It is just as illegal to steal and to kill in Thailand and Japan as anywhere else. No bible needed.

Jesus Christ, god and the bible are nowhere referenced in the US constitution, the law of the land. The US legal system is not based on the bible or Christianity--thank Thor. Life in the US would look a lot more like life in Saudi Arabia if it was--busy executing gays, atheists and other sinners.

We do not have chattel slavery in the US. If we followed Christianity instead of secular law, people would still be able to legally own, sell, and beat other human beings. Finally, nothing in Christianity mandates the protection of human rights, equality, fairness or freedom of speech-- principles that many modern societies promote.

It is depressing that some people love to deride the very same science that they benefit from every day...

Christians feel the same about those who think the scriptures are notthe basis of the laws others enjoy benefit from.

And, as usual, they would be wrong.

You know that thing called the Constitution? Written by someone who thought your God was a lot of malarkey.Voting isn't found in the Bible, but punishing someone for 'not crying loud enough' while being raped is.

So to reiterate: You are wrong. Please toss out your phone and computer.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I just wish that atheists would take the risk of thinking for themselves and so experience the true happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom comes when you realise that God is the source of that independent thought.

Isn't this an oxymoron? I mean, if you have a source for 'independent' thought, then how can you say someone is "thinking for themselves"? That's like saying a Borg drone "thinks for itself" because the source of its thought is actually the Borg Collective.